[Discussion] Free speech. I think its ok to shut down fascists.

Seth wrote:

You're right about that, cheeze, but I still assert that the subject matter...matters.

At this point I'd even say that it doesn't just matter, it's the only thing that matters.

Jayhawker wrote:

Liberals are the real fascists, bigots, racists, homophobes, and sexists. It's an oldie, but goodie.

If you are referring to me I am saying shutting down free speech is fascist not liberals. You can be whatever you want and want to shut down free speech and it's still fascist.

Plus I would consider myself classically liberal.

Booth wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Liberals are the real fascists, bigots, racists, homophobes, and sexists. It's an oldie, but goodie.

If you are referring to me I am saying shutting down free speech is fascist not liberals. You can be whatever you want and want to shut down free speech and it's still fascist.

Plus I would consider myself classically liberal.

So more or less libertarian?

Also, can we put the paradox of tolerance in the first post? I feel like it's a necessary primer for these types of discussions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para...

Tolerance and freedom of speech
The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical. Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech

Fascism, liberalism, libertarianism...all just abstract thought experiments. There's what makes the world a better place, and there's what doesn't. (edit) That's the best it gets, and...it's good enough to get the job done these days. Again, such discussions of things like -isms are a hangover from an earlier time.

Eight pages in and we're still stuck at "curtailing absolute free speech is facism"?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Eight pages in and we're still stuck at "curtailing absolute free speech is facism"?

The absolutists haven't been convinced. They still believe that unless you can yell fire in a theater, you live under the brutal boot of a fascist regime. And of course if you don't exercise that right, it's not really a right.

I wonder how that relates to Citizens united. If money is speech, and the first amendment protects limitless consequence free speech, shouldn't we all be legally entitled to limitless money? Sounds like solid legal support for Quantitative Easing III: infinite UBI.

Seth wrote:

I wonder how that relates to Citizens united. If money is speech, and the first amendment protects limitless consequence free speech, shouldn't we all be legally entitled to limitless money? Sounds like solid legal support for Quantitative Easing III: infinite UBI.

Spending money is speech, not having money. I'm sure people that like CU will have no issue with you wanting to spend limitless money. Or that you can earn limitless money, but it won't be given to you freely, the same way no one gives you your speech; you have to make it yourself.

Denying my right to spend money just because I don't have it? Sounds like fascism, buddy.

Don't worry!! I have a couple credit cards and a sub-prime auto loan for you!!

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel dead at 78: wife

The Canadian government jailed him in '85, a conviction later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada ("freedom of expression"), then deported him to Germany in 2005 citing his risk to national security.

Somehow this nation managed not to plunge down the slippery slope toward jailing those who speak out against the government or profess Robin's superiority to Tim's.

Because they are better than us.

Robin's is FAR superior to Tim's, there is no argument.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel dead at 78: wife

The Canadian government jailed him in '85, a conviction later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada ("freedom of expression"), then deported him to Germany in 2005 citing his risk to national security.

Somehow this nation managed not to plunge down the slippery slope toward jailing those who speak out against the government or profess Robin's superiority to Tim's.

Good thing for him he wasn't an American citizen living in Yemen, amirite? Or is that national security rationale apples to oranges?

This headline is obviously a trick designed to make us doubt ourselves.

Who are Antifa? An essay by a European historian who studies the movement. He makes the argument that Antifa movements date back to the 30's, at least, and take the philosophy that it's much easier to harrass and shut down fascists, racists and anti-Semites when they are small groups and relatively disorganized, rather than after they have taken over government. And make no mistake; we're pretty far along the path, with laws in some states with a history of racist groups indemnifying people who drive over protesters.

In a sense, Antifa movements are statements about where absolute free speech rights give way to preventing dire, irreperable harm to a society, or even a country. I have to re-iterate my position; Nazis have free speech rights, of course, but should be resisted with every tool at our disposal. They won't hesitate to use violence to intimidate you. Don't give them the opening by letting dogma overcome the pragmatic reality that these idiots do *not* have the best interests of society at heart.

I was thinking this morning, and I think the biggest problem with "free speech" is the english language. "Freedom of speech" makes for a great - and misinterpretable - sound bite, where, as with most sound bites, it loses all context and much of it's actual meaning.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, nor does it mean anyone is required to listen, nor does it mean I need to provide you with a platform, nor does it mean that anyone who isn't the government is required to let you talk. You want to have a neo-Nazi parade? Fine; you can't get arrested for it. But I can sure as hell stand in your way, and shout you down, and prevent you from doing your thing. That seems to be the side that the freeze peach folk are missing. Say what you like, but don't expect people to listen.

Actually, what I think you're touching on here is the basic question that *underlies* our freedoms. Are they rights, or liberties? The right to free speech means that you are "free" from government interference in your speech, except in situations where that would cause a danger to others directly. The liberty of speech means you, the individual, are able to say what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want.

Freedoms are generally liberties that are restricted based on the needs of *society*, rather than the individual. However, since at least the mid-17th century in the West, some have argued that liberties should be far less restrained, or even unrestrained.

When you see someone framing an argument in terms of freedoms, they are arguing within a framework of law as legitimately limiting liberties. When you see someone arguing in terms of "natural rights" or "liberties", they are probably going to *reject* most if not all limitations on those liberties. (But always check the person's understanding of the difference, since many people don't bother with these distinctions and so confuse themselves and others when looking at documents from several hundred years ago where this was much more widely understood and debated.)

As Americans, we have the *liberty* to speak or act in any way we want, but not the *freedom* to do so. It's the drawing of that line that creates political tension for libertarians as well as authoritarians.

Isn't there some ability to arrest people that come armed to a rally? Doesn't that signal some sort of intent to use it on others?

Some sort of message from local law-enforcement "we will not tolerate firearms at 'peaceful rallies/marches' - For the safety of yourself, and others, please leave your guns at home"

It would help if their 'messiah' would push a similar line, but we know he doesn't want to alienate his 'base', so that's not going to happen...

Crowd of assault-rifle-carrying brown people = omgterrists!!
Crowd of assault-rifle-carrying white people =
Fine upstanding 'merkan citizens.

Insane...

I mean, this is the same guy who was on Twitter almost immediately after a Muslim man rammed a vehicle through people talking about terrorism, then gave a speech from his lobby yesterday to talk about how it was important to wait for all the facts.

Like, he was faster criticizing the CEO of Merck than he was criticizing white nationalism by days.

Robear wrote:

The right to free speech means that you are "free" from government interference in your speech, except in situations where that would cause a danger to others directly. The liberty of speech means you, the individual, are able to say what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want.

I would simplify them to differing between the legal consequences of speech from the state versus the social consequences of speech.

Legal consequences are generally what libertarians oppose, for a variety of reasons. My opposition basically because the regulation of speech is, at it's base, the most pure exercise of privilege and power imaginable. Speech norms determined by the ruling class give them more power to maintain that power. It's used almost exclusively against minorities.

Opposing social consequences means opposing the right to not only disagree with someone's speech, but to voice that disagreement and act against that speech(in a way that does not infringe on the others' rights, of course). This is something that non-principled assholes oppose because they can't imagine anyone disagreeing with them at all.

cube wrote:

It's used almost exclusively against minorities.

This is not true. Unless you are referring to Nazis as minorities, in which case, yes, European hate speech laws are used to stifle the ability of neo-Nazi groups to spread and glorify hate, oppression, and violence.

This "consequences of speech" line, let's carry it through, because I'm not certain what folks are thinking of in practice. What would Charlottesville have looked like under what folks are saying?

Yonder wrote:
cube wrote:

It's used almost exclusively against minorities.

This is not true. Unless you are referring to Nazis as minorities, in which case, yes, European hate speech laws are used to stifle the ability of neo-Nazi groups to spread and glorify hate, oppression, and violence.

If you focus on Europe alone, maybe, but there are still egregious abuses of power beyond "just stopping nazis".

How about an activist that posted a BBC article in Thailand: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-th...

Or France fining BDS activists: http://www.timesofisrael.com/french-...

Or Jakarta jailing a governor for blasphemy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...

wordsmythe wrote:

This "consequences of speech" line, let's carry it through, because I'm not certain what folks are thinking of in practice. What would Charlottesville have looked like under what folks are saying?

There are a lot of people talking about a wide spread of different consequences. For those that actually think there should be hate speech exemptions to the first Amendment the result would be that the original denial of their permit to demonstrate would not have gotten successful appeal. If it had been successful it would be with the clear stipulation that such speech would not be allowed. People carrying Nazi flags and symbols would have been arrested and charged with these theoretical laws. They could argue in court that they are not hateful Nazi's, and just, like, in it for the articles or whatever, and they could see where that gets them.

cube wrote:

If you focus on Europe alone, maybe, but there are still egregious abuses of power beyond "just stopping nazis".

Yes, that I agree with entirely. "Still" is very, very different from "almost exclusively" and we need to keep that in mind.

This was sent to me in a PM, and I thought it was highly appropriate:

America At The End of All Hypotheticals

This is so tightly written that it's hard to pull quotes out. Every paragraph matters, it's a real hard essay to trim. So I'll just pull out pretty much the second half (italics are his, not mine):

Popehat wrote:

These are hard times. Our values should be our beacons to lead us through them. Those values include due process, the rule of law and equality of all people before it, and freedom of speech and worship.

The Nazis, whether armed with rifles or clownishly clad in khakis, stand against our values — they stand for the proposition that some of us are less American than others by birth, and that America must be "preserved" to the tastes of a particular narrow ethnic prejudice. Nazis attacking and threatening our fellow Americans threaten not just their immediate targets but the foundations of everything we've built. Decent Americans should speak, organize, and lead against them. This is the end of another classic hypothetical — what would you do if America's most shameful ancient wrongs were resurgent? What would you do if the Nazis started marching again?

But you cannot destroy a value in order to save it. Nazis — like terrorists — hope that we will abandon principles and fundamentally change who we are out of fear. Assault is assault, threats are threats, murder is murder, and all of them should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted. The allowance for self-defense by those threatened by Nazis should reasonably be generous. But despicable speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should remain so. Our present circumstances show why it is sheer terrified madness to entrust a broad power to prevent or punish speech upon a fickle state. We've flirted with that madness of abandoning rights in pursuit of safety for our nation's whole life. The flirtation has turned sordid and degrading during the War on Crime and frankly self-destructive after 9/11. It would be philosophical suicide to hasten it now by giving a government — a visibly terrible and amoral government — the power to regulate speech. This is the final hypothetical come to pass: if the state asked you to give up freedoms in exchange for a dubious promise it would make you safer, would you do it? Would you convince yourself that the state would only use the power against Them, and not you?

We're a long way from perfect. But we are better than this place we find ourselves. We can climb out of it.

Nazis — like terrorists — hope that we will abandon principles and fundamentally change who we are out of fear.

Sure, but that's a "nice to have" after all the white supremacy stuff.

It would be philosophical suicide to hasten it now by giving a government — a visibly terrible and amoral government — the power to regulate speech.

This is the better point.

How many Nazis and other scumbags got arrested this weekend for their words?

But, remember, this is the country of We The People. We're all the government. If we don't all hold to those values, they don't exist.

How many Nazis and other scumbags got arrested this weekend for their words?

I'll bet nickels to Ben Franklins that it wasn't as many as a huge number of people wanted.

No, you know it doesn't work that way. It's never worked that way. It will never work that way, because that is so stupid, on it's face, that a society would collapse under the weight of chaos.

Malor wrote:

But, remember, this is the country of We The People. We're all the government. If we don't all hold to those values, they don't exist.

How many Nazis and other scumbags got arrested this weekend for their words?

I'll bet nickels to Ben Franklins that it wasn't as many as a huge number of people wanted.

That's the f*cking point! For f*ck's sake, pull your head out of your hypothetical ass, for once. You speak for conservatives that didn't get banned for what they said. They either got banned or left because they couldn't take what others said.

You long for a world where you don't have to face societal consequences for your speech. That's not the world the rest of us live in.